jpj wrote:this is why we laugh at him
if you think ayone here cares what he *thinks* and is interested in wasting their time with some anonymous troll to dissect some 1000-2000 word verbal wankery, then you've got your head firmly up your ass.
Udderdude wrote:
You will never get your point-by-point rebuttal of whatever Icyclam wrote.
Because nobody really gives a shit about him, other than for some cheap laughs at his expense.
You don't care about him? And what thread am I reading? Is all of this thread dedicated to icycalm? Surely, it can't be...
Ed Oscuro wrote:I think we all know that dictionaries are more relevant in determining the proper hierarchy of the rational arts than empirical, consistent evidence presented in the years since the middle of the 19th century.
Too bad they are still unreliable, and, of course, in part, never the same. But you would believe anything and everything they say, wouldn't you? Ah, the dictionary: a refined,
perfect compendium of factual definitions! lol!
Ed Oscuro wrote:
The point that is most galling to me is the "Icy's style doesn't count" argument. This a tacit admission that Icycalm isn't effective, and that he would be more effective in boosting his favorite ideas if he quit the needless rage and wrote in a direct style (aside from when bashing somebody).
Because saying "style doesn't count," that means that icy's argument isn't effective? What kind of retarded bullshit is this? And there isn't any "needless rage" in his writing–you're just hallucinating (You couldn't pull up any examples, either). His attacks are clearly justified.
Ed Oscuro wrote:
The two primary functions of philosophy are first to determine the proper manner of action (since science just describes how things are), and secondly in popularizing those ideas so they may have effect.
Now, pulling up random facts out of nowhere? Are you sure you didn't make that up?
Ed Oscuro wrote:I can't dismiss Icy's background out of hand for the same reason but he seems to believe that an argument is just as valid if presented in a vacuum, drifting free of any anchors to that nuisance reality. Once a philosopher forgets the muddy roots of humanity they cease to be relevant.
And so, this is reason enough to dismiss all of his arguments entirely? Give me a fucking break! And no matter "where" an argument is or can be presented, you must still judge it by its own merits. Oh, but you can't understand them! Boo-hoo. Well, if so, it's because they weren't written on such a low level–and they shouldn't be. How do you come up with such inane logic?
antron wrote:a philosopher or a physicist can change the world, but a physicist can do it instantly.
As icycalm said, physicists like to shuffle formulas around for years on end, and what further? Oh yeah, monkeys on on the fucking moon. And how the fuck do they "do" it instantly? Trashy bullshit.
